When there was no life, why did nature invent a storage system to store the information about sometning (Life) which was still not existent, and hence there was no information to store.
Sometimes "information" is just an accident. When an animal leaves tracks in the snow, they contain information about what kind of animal he was, which direction he was going, how fast he was going etc. But he didn't invent snow just to convey that information.
Information is only information when it's used as information.
However, the difference between the animal trail in snow and RNA is that we have to derive information from the former and it is a passive information, but RNA is solely a copy, and an active copy of information, whether we derive or not, it will deliver its information to the protein synthesising machinery.
The information in the snow is there whether whether anybody uses it or not; same with the RNA. It can be used for some purpose "because it's there". It isn't necessary for somebody or something to put it there for that purpose.
Sometimes necessity is the mother of invention but other times new uses are found for an existing invention.
But where do you think the journalists GET their incessant stories about the 'new discoveries' that all but prove abiogenesis? Do you think the press has moles in the scientific community that steal these 'secrets'?
I didn't say anything about secrets. But yes, it is pretty much the press seeking out stories rather than the scientific community seeking publicity.
Science has to show how the DNA code sequences needed to build life COULD have originated by naturalistic means.
If a DNA or RNA molecule can exist - and it can - then there is no question about whether it "could" have originated by naturalistic means.
And so far it hasn't, though scientists have been trying for over 50 years.
Scientists aren't trying to show that it "could" happen. That's a foregone conclusion. They're trying to figure out a pathway by which it does happen. When/if they do, it won't necessarily be the same pathway by which it did happen.
Those were the only kind of intelligent entities around at the time, apparently....
Well, no. Non-physical intelligent beings have never been "apparent".
... we now have a full overview of how the replication system and cell operate.
You have an over-optimistic idea of fulllness. We have a pretty good idea of how the replication system and cell operate but we are learning more about it every day. We do have a full enough understanding to know that no intelligence was necessary to set it in motion.
Think about it: All this design was somehow inserted into the first living thing.
Think about this: All any intelligence can do is manipulate existing processes.
And what if there is a higher intelligence than humans? Someone intelligent enough to construct life from chemicals using the laws of chemistry and physics?
What if there is? That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not chemistry and physics could do it on their own. The answer to that question and this thread is: There's no reason to think that intelligence is necessary.